[heyman]

Yes, and if you think that a strict interpretation of the Constitution is what the President or Congress or the Supreme Court or any other court uses in their decision making then you're hopelessly out of touch. Bottom line - if prohibition isn't unconstitutional, then prohibition of the prohibition isn't unconstitutional.

People can both know how things work and also have a different vision of how they’d like the world to be improved.

In most cases (e.g., Ron Paul) so-called "Libertarians" are really nothing more than states-rightsers

You misquoted me and took what I said completely out of context. I never said that their opposition to impediments to liberty was based on "nothing more than opposition to Federal over state government".

See post #28. I didn’t misquote you. That is exactly what you said - that their issue is only based on states rights, a constitutional concern, not concern due to liberties (which you put in quotes). You didn’t originally say that they believed state rights trumped their other beliefs. You said it was only states’ rights. That characterization of libertarians needed correcting. Perhaps you meant they care about both constitution and liberties, if so I agree.

You may feel that preserving states rights is disastrous, but that's an opinion. I want to be clear that libertarians are not against anti-gambling laws solely based on states' rights.

I get that from the statements of self-proclaimed libertarians like Paul, Harry Browne, Andrew Napolitano, etc.

You got what? Libertarians are against adult prohibition. Browne was and Paul certainly is. I’m nearly certain on Napolitano.

[mighty maron]

It doesnt get close...

[coldhardfacts]

See post #28. I didn’t misquote you. That is exactly what you said - that their issue is only based on states rights, a constitutional concern, not concern due to liberties (which you put in quotes). You didn’t originally say that they believed state rights trumped their other beliefs. You said it was only states’ rights. That characterization of libertarians needed correcting. Perhaps you meant they care about both constitution and liberties, if so I agree.

Apparently reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits. This is what I said:

Maybe, maybe not. In most cases (e.g., Ron Paul) so-called "Libertarians" are really nothing more than states-rightsers, a la Strom Thurmond and Lester Maddox. True, they would seek to have onerous Federal anti-gambling (and drug, and anti-gay) statutes overturned, but would allow individual states to impose the most draconian laws and penalties for these types of "crimes". Real libertarians would defend the rights of all Americans regardless of where they lived.


I concede (and made that clear in my original statement) that Libertarians oppose restrictions on individual freedoms and liberties. But they would do nothing at the Federal level to ensure that all Americans enjoyed those freedoms. They would continue to allow states like Washington to impose penalties for internet gambling that are harsher than those for rape. And this, in my view, is the antithesis of what libertarians should stand for.

[heyman]

Apparently reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits. This is what I said:

Maybe, maybe not. In most cases (e.g., Ron Paul) so-called "Libertarians" are really nothing more than states-rightsers, a la Strom Thurmond and Lester Maddox. True, they would seek to have onerous Federal anti-gambling (and drug, and anti-gay) statutes overturned, but would allow individual states to impose the most draconian laws and penalties for these types of "crimes". Real libertarians would defend the rights of all Americans regardless of where they lived.


I concede (and made that clear in my original statement) that Libertarians oppose restrictions on individual freedoms and liberties. But they would do nothing at the Federal level to ensure that all Americans enjoyed those freedoms. They would continue to allow states like Washington to impose penalties for internet gambling that are harsher than those for rape. And this, in my view, is the antithesis of what libertarians should stand for.

No you didn't. There is nothing in your original statement that said libertarians oppose restrictions on individual freedoms. You said they would have them overturned because they are "nothing more than "states' righters". States' rights advocates would overturn many laws on positions that they actually support.

You have since clarified that that is not what you meant. But the original statement was wrong.

[coldhardfacts]

No you didn't. There is nothing in your original statement that said libertarians oppose restrictions on individual freedoms. You said they would have them overturned because they are "nothing more than "states' righters". States' rights advocates would overturn many laws on positions that they actually support.

You have since clarified that that is not what you meant. But the original statement was wrong.

Again that is not what I said nor what I was trying to imply. I said Libertarians are "nothing more than states-rightsers" (which, in effect they are) AND that they wanted to have those laws overturned, but I certainly didn't mean to imply that states rights was the only, or even the primary reason they wanted the laws changed. Alot of people in the 60s opposed discrimination (Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, for instance), but didn't want the Federal Government imposing anti-discrimination laws on the states. If they had gotten their way, the country would have been irreparably damaged, and might have been torn completely apart. Many modern day libertarians (e.g., Ron and Rand Paul) would like to repeal those anti-discrimination laws.

In any case, I think my position is now clear.